I've been searching all day, and I didn't quite come up with what I wanted. I have one picture, and I was wondering if anyone else has other photos/experience with this type of setup. Thanks.
Its always concerned me as to where the pivot point is....or lack of it. But it works great for drag cars. Check out "Ch***is Engineering" or "Chris Alstons Ch***is Works" for more of the same. Their design incorporates a hiem-joint for flexibility. .
I thought about that, too. If I use this design, I would use heims at the joints at the rear end, but leave the bushings at the frame.
Ok... the hiem joint semi covers the flexibility issues.... But what about horizontal strength and support?.... the set up in the picture all the horizontal support relies on that top center mount directly on the rear-end, made even less by a hiem joint.....no? Would a simple panhard bar be in order with this configuration?
i had a setup like this on my track t when i first started on it.....i used a heim on the top with spacers so it would articulate without binding....the top mount on the rearend was braced on each side ...could have probably used one in the center towards the rear for a little more bracing.....i was only going to run a 4 cyl and a 5 speed so big torque wasn't in the picture.....a panhard wouldn't be necessary ....as the top link would locate the rear ...but still allow full range of travel.....and not let the pinion move too much....brandon
actually .....i changed it to hairpins to match the front....in hind site....i would have just left it alone.... ....i had it setup with coil overs.....but the look was bugging the hell out of me ...so i went to the pins.....i see no reason why it wouldn't work.....as long as the top mounts are braced good......brandon
everybody and their brother with a chevy s-10 runs a triangulated 3 link. suicidedoors.com has made them the staple of the minitruckin community. the only difference is they run two mounts on the axle and one on the frame. ive never heard anyone complain.
its the same principle that drag cars and trophy trucks use only scaled down, but ya my next project will be hairpins all the way!!!!
That set up was basically the same as in 58 GM cars (Chevs, Ponchos). A friend has the wishbone type top locator, but in a slide mount and heim jointed.
Thats the same type of setup used on Geo Trackers and Jeep Grand Cherokees. Maybe others... Jeep uses what appears to be a regular ball joint as the center pivot on the housing (2 bushings at the frame) and I haven't heard bad things about the setup.
Take a look at some off road jeeps/buggies they are using the same setup. the good thing for them is the travel and flex side to side.
The way this is set up is not a good idea for the street. It would be ok if sphericle rod ends were used, but the way it is now it would be in a bind situation everytime one side of the suspension traveled and the other didn't. This would be fine for a drag car, but not a street car. Matt
Flipper, How so? Just curious? With this set up, how can it rotate one side up, one side down? I'm really not trying to sound like a jerk, I just want to know if there's something I'm not seeing in this suspension geometry. Matt
i have a suicidedoors.com 3-link under my 51 chevy truck. i couldn`t be more satisfied with this set-up. i will try to snap some pics of it later.
I'm building a ch***is for a '49 Chevy right now using a 3-link with a wishbone and airbags....it's going to work surprisingly well. Think about it....how much does the center link have to actually pivot at its mounting point during normal driving? 10 degrees at most? A good (large diameter) urethane bushing will accomodate that no problem. And the wishbone creates enough triangulation to stop 99% of side to side movement....in fact, the tires themselves on the car I'm doing are the source of any side to side movement at all. I have to agree with Flipper....this set-up seems to be in less of a bind than a typical triangulated four link. I'll post pictures of what I'm doing when I get a little bit further along.
Are we talking about the picture that K13 posted? If so, sorry to say, that set up is not the optimal set up. Take a closer look at how that suspension is going to travel. I understand that urethane bushings have some give to them, but they're not designed to be stressed that much. If rod ends were used and the center pivot point was a ball I could understand it better, they would be forgiving as the suspension travels up and down in an arch. If both rear wheels go up and down at the exact same time and the exact same amount, then this suspension will be fine. But, if one side travels up and the other side goes down, there will most definitely be a bind situation. I can attest to the fact that race cars are not set up like this. Again, I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying it's not the best set up.
B***, Please post pics when you can. I'd like to see what you're doing. Maybe I'm just not seeing something here, but I've set up plenty of suspensions and it looks like a bind to me. Matt
The upper bar (Photo, post #11) is put in somewhat of a bind if one wheel goes over a bump and the other doesn't. If you think about it, however, a similar twist is placed on the the lower bars. To push it even further, think about a standard parallel 4-bar - front or rear. The 4-bar isn't the no-stress setup that some folks claim. If one wheel goes up, some kind of twist is put on all four bars on both sides. That's why Henry used wishbones. Luckily, most street rods don't have enough travel to make much of a difference. As an example, on a normal width axle, a six-inch rise at one wheel would induce an angle of about six degrees. However, when the axle goes up, the frame doesn't stay parallel with the ground. It goes up also, because the spring is pushing it. So, let's say the maximum twist is about 3 degrees. Based on that, I did some calculations. ***uming a bushing sleeve about 3" long, a 3-degree twist would cause a deflection at the bushing ends of about 5/64". Is that too much? Probably not. If all three attachment points on the axle are heim joints, then the setup in Post #1 would cause much less bind than the setup in Post #11 But, my point is, in almost all of the solid axle setups we use, there is usually some bind. Apparently, it's not excessive, because most of them work.
I have done several. The most recent was on an air ride '55 Chevy pickup. I use two mounts on the frame and one on the rearend housing. I also use a pivoting end on the wishbone that will not put anything in a bind. I have built them with bushings and with Heims.
Anybody see the new art morrison cataloge I just mine in the mail? He's got a similar rear suspension out. Its got two straight forward bars or links and only one upper single link. Then its got a watts style panhard bar setup. Thats the one that has a panhard bar running from each side of the frame to a pivot in the middle. Its not a new design but morrison makes some sweet stuff for mail order. LTR Dave
My 32 has 2 lower wishbone links, a panhard bar and a third link that goes from the top of the quickchange to a forward mount on the frame. It also has a model A spring. The lower wishbones look stock however they have a urethane end where it meets the axle, there by acting like the lower bars of a four bar which allows the rear end to travel in a straight up and down and not in an arc like the fixed lower links of a wishbone. It also has on open drive , no torque tube. Make sense? chuck
The roll center is where the single end of the wishbone attaches. Want to use an old stock car trick and make it (the roll center) lower for good handling, use the wishbone as the lower link and attach the single end centered on the rear axle under the differential using a rod end, ball joint, etc. (using multiple mounting holes in the bracket(s) will give some adjustability). Run it forward to brackets inside the frame rails and use the stock Ford bones split with bushings or heims at each end with the rears attached to brackets on top of the axle ends and the fronts attached to the outside of the frame and it can even look very "traditional". By the way, a panhard rod is not necessary or desirable with a true wishbone attached to the axle at it's single end because it will perfectly center the axle throughout the complete range of movement and a panhard rod does not (there will always be some sideways axle movement resulting from the rods natural arc, however slight). It is even possible for a watts link to vary from the centerline at the extremes of it's travel.
I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything as the search function doesn't seem to work properly. I was reading this thread yesterday but had to leave for work. Now when I searched for 3-link I didn't find your thread and some of the results didn't even have the phrase 3-link in them. I do however like the idea of using a heim joint instead of bushes for the single connection / link on the diff housing.
found a similar setup for a 05 Mustang. must be an OK setup. BTW search works just fine for me. Clear your cache. Then try again.
I had a set-up nearly identical to Morrison three bar set-up. It's been commonly several pro-shops. Three parallel bars (one on top about 8" off the centerline, and two parallel bars on the bottom) with a Panhard. Low 12 sec. car. Ch***is handled the power real well.
I use those wishbone rear setups quite frequently and they are very good on the road as well as an adjustable suspension. I use either poly bushings or uniball ends depending on the purpose it will serve. Heims will collect dirt and debris and wear out quickly on a daily or something driven alot so that is my reason for not using a typical rod end. Hope this helps.
The Jalopy Journal
